Maraviroc Plus Atazanavir/Ritonavir in a Nuke-Sparing Regimen in Treatment-Naive Patients

Results at 96 weeks were presented from a randomised open-label, phase 2b pilot study that compared dual therapy with atazanavir/ritonavir plus either maraviroc (n=60) or tenofovir/FTC (n=61) as a standard of care control arm, in treatment-naive patients.

Although maraviroc does not have a license indication for treatment-naive patients, the pharmacological benefits of this approach include using a 150 mg once-daily dose for maraviroc, halving the standard dose, and therefore halving the cost.

Viral efficacy response rates at week 96 suggested that the dual combination was not as good, with 67.8% (40/59) versus 82.0% (50/61) patients having viral load suppressed to <50 copies/mL. Using the <400 cut-off, results were 78% vs 84%. Viral load in the eight patients in the maraviroc arm with viral load >50 at week 96, ranged from 54 to 7600, with 5/8 <200 copies/mL. The single detectable patient in the tenofovir/FTC arm blipped at 77 copies/mL.

No resistance (genotypic or phenotypic) or change in tropism was detected in the patients with viral load >500 copies/mL (maraviroc = 4; tenofovir/FTC = 1).

Median CD4 increases from baseline were 269 and 305 cells/mm3 in the maraviroc vs tenofovir/FTC arms. Greater reductions in creatinine clearance (-5.5 versus -18 mL/min) occurred with tenofovir/FTC compared to maraviroc. Although serum bone formation markers were lower in the maraviroc arm at both weeks 48 add 96, baseline values for either group were not available. While the study numbers were small, other side effects seemed broadly similar, with 21% vs 18% for serious side effects, 53% vs 33% for grade 3/4 events, 3% vs 0 discontinuing due to side effects, and 70% vs 56% for grade 3/4 hyperbilirubinaemia, all maraviroc vs tenofovir/FTC respectively.

Comment

Although the researchers emphasised that the study was not powered for between-group differences, the results generated sufficient caution for the subsequent phase 3 study of this nuke-sparing approach, now ongoing, to pair maraviroc with darunavir/ritonavir rather than atazanavir/r.

This article was provided by HIV i-Base. It is a part of the publication HIV Treatment Bulletin. Visit HIV i-Base's website to find out more about their activities, publications and services.

No comments have been made.

Add Your Comment:

(Please note: Your name and comment will be public, and may even show up in Internet search results. Be careful when providing personal information! Beforeadding your comment, please read TheBody.com's Comment Policy.)

Please do not modify the following input field.

Your Name:

Your Location:

(ex: San Francisco, CA)

Your Comment:

Characters remaining:

Please note: Knowledge about HIV changes rapidly. Note the date of this summary's publication, and before treating patients or employing any therapies described in these materials, verify all information independently. If you are a patient, please consult a doctor or other medical professional before acting on any of the information presented in this summary. For a complete listing of our most recent conference coverage, click here.

TheBodyPRO.com is a service of Remedy Health Media, LLC, 750 3rd Avenue, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10017. TheBodyPRO.com and its logos are trademarks of Remedy Health Media, LLC, and its subsidiaries, which owns the copyright of TheBodyPRO.com's homepage, topic pages, page designs and HTML code. General Disclaimer: TheBodyPRO.com is designed for educational purposes only and is not engaged in rendering medical advice or professional services. The information provided through TheBodyPRO.com should not be used for diagnosing or treating a health problem or a disease. It is not a substitute for professional care. If you have or suspect you may have a health problem, consult your health care provider.